Socialism vs. Capitalism

[Solon]

Why is it that people assume that the choice between a Socialist system and Capitalistic system is only an either/or proposition. In my limited observations of economics, my personal opinion is, that in some things Socialism are good for and in others Capitalism is good for. For example, consumer goods, a socialist system would suck at delivering these, simply because they are far too varied and, in general, frivolous.

Capitalism is good at that, what capitalism sucks at is the providing of basic services, water, utilities, health care, education, power, hell even the telephone companies have to be subsidized or else they'll sink.

My point is, when someone says that socialism is dead, they have no clue as to what they are talking about, "Free Enterprise" has never existed in this world, nor can it ever come to fruitation. Extremes are bad, on both sides of the fence. Regulations are neccessary for a healthy market, protection from fraud, and the enforcement of contracts are two things that come to mind that governments are neccessary for. However, socialist systems can not provide every need of a human being either, there is always room for a market, and a better product. The people, through government, put a check on the excesses of capitalism.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Recently here in Montana

we had an initiative for the state to buy all the hydroelectric generating facilities and operate them for the benefit of the people. Well the initiative was defeated and we are already paying the price, but my point is that for this to be even considered proves your point that socialism is far from dead.

[Wonk]

4. 60 Minutes did a piece related to that. Quicktime vid & transcript here.

49 M

on edit: added transcript for dialup DUers
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/06/60minutes/main539719.shtml

[Solon]

6. Too bad I'm on dial-up

I need broad-band back! Thanks for the link anyways, (may use a night or two to download, I'll bookmark it)

[fabius]

2. Excellent Post Solon.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I work in the water utility industry and the majority in this country are municipally-owned or public utilities. This gives generally a much better system than the privatization seen in Europe (and lower rates too). We should have public ownership of power utilities too IMHO.

General manufacturing and consumer goods, in fact almost all other sectors where a "natural monopoly" doesn't exist should be in private hands as competitive enterprises.

A capitalist system needs public infrastructure to support it. It also needs laws and regulations to make sure tha tprivate enterprises pay the true cost of their production (includingworker safety and pollution control) otherwise they are foisting off their costs on the public.

All modern democracies are in fact a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Generally it works well, the argument is how much of each you want. Socialism is NOT dead.

[Solon]

8. I know exactly what you mean.

My mom and I were talking about her gas prices in the house. When it was the local gas utility, St. Charles Gas, it was owned by the city. But the city sold it to Laclede, a "deregulated" public utility company, and her bills have since risen about 200%, I am not exaggerating.

[Must_B_Free]

3. What about communism?

they are all just systems that may or may not work depending at where they are corrupted.

They apparently all can be abused by power interests.

All of that labl throwing is hollow really, it lacks substance.

People just like to throw labels with vague connotations around, so they can avoid being specific. Thuis way, they can just blather nonsense and avoid all contradiction.

[Solon]

5. thats my point

Both systems, labeled or not, are prone to abuse, the idea is that in a truely democratic society, the people are the ones who judge the system. Communism, in it Stalinist and Maoist forms are totaliarian in nature, and therefore have no checks on power. Similar to Fascism, with no checks on capitalistic power. We need to form a more equitable system, where, while work and innovation are rewarded, no one starves to death either.

[AP]

7. My dichotomy is generally that...

anything that is easy to monopolize -- either because it is such a basic need which you have no choice about consuming (water) or things which would be too inefficient to provide competitively (like rail service or electricity -- it doesn't make sense to lay down two sets of tracks and build twice as many trains, or lay down to set of wires coming into your house with two power plants) -- should be socialized.

Also I feel that the wealth of a nation, whether it's gold mines or oil fields -- because these things sort of belong to everybody -- there may be a good argument to socialize the industry or parts of it (like, the land can not be sold, but only leased for short time periods, requiring frequent renegotiation of rental rates).

Anything that benefits from marketplace competion should be handled by a well-regulated non-monoply capital market. Competition is the thing capitalism does so well. Nothing else drives down prices and drives forward improvement, invention and progress quite like competition. If you want people to develop new ideas, and take chances, all for the betterment of society, give them a little capitalism.

[silverweb]

9. You're absolutely right, Solon...

And I agree with you 100%. What we need to develop is a workable hybrid system, where essential needs are socialized and the rest is privatized.

It seems perfectly obvious and logical, and why it's so hard to achieve is beyond me. I keep seeing only one real obstacle: Greed.
:shrug:

[fabius]

10. Bunch of good Social Democrats here!

This makes a lot of sense even for die-hard capitalists. You gotta have a foundation to build your capitalism on!!

Why don't Repuglians get it? OH - I think they DON'T WANT universal prosperity...just more bucks for themselves.

EDIT (spelling) getting late!

[Zuni]

40. exactly

people cannot buy your products if they do not have the $$$.

A sensible social system, and healthy wealth distribution makes a vibrant economy.

[Solon]

11. One other obstacle

The Socialist system has a bad rap, overall, in America. Mostly because of the USSR, socialism is associated with communism in the minds of many in this country. Most Americans, I believe, would not be adverse to many programs that socialism stands for, if you remove the label. I find it ironic the the Socialist Party of the US was and is the most stoutly anti-communist party in the country. Always was, even before the Russian Revolution.

[DoNotRefill]

12. there are other reasons socialism gets a bad rap....

I had a friend, a British national, who developed cancer. When they found it, they scheduled treatment for him, a YEAR after their projected life expectancy for him was to have expired. Basically, they told him to toddle on home and die because he was of no use to them any more.

He came to the US for treatment, got it, extended his life some, and still died before the scheduled treatment date in England.

Ever read Animal Farm?

[Solon]

13. Better than how it is right now

If I develop cancer or have a heart attack, and have no medical insurance, then either I sell the house, or die. No system is perfect, but there is something to be said that you cannot be denied medical service due to economic status. BTW, I have family in Britian, Manchester to be precise, and while they have complaints, they say that at least in England, they will not die for being poor.

[DoNotRefill]

59. Here, at least...

there's a state law requiring hospitals to treat indigent patients despite inability to pay, even if they don't qualify for medicare/caid. The State picks up the tab. My sister's boyfriend recently had spinal surgery under that provision. They even gave him his perscriptions free. From the time the problem was identified to him going under the knife was under 2 weeks. It was a life threatening condition, of course, and not at all elective in nature, so he got treatment in a timely manner.

[rogerashton]

107. I believe the Bush* administration

just removed that requirement.

In defense of which, it IS hard to make a no-party payment system work.

[DoNotRefill]

123. Sorry, that's a State law...

not Federal. Bush CAN'T remove it.

[billyskank]

14. Yeah, well

we can always find examples of where the British national health service has screwed up. Read the Daily Mail or the Daily Telegraph (British ultra-tory papers) and you'll find examples every day that seem to show the NHS in crisis. Privatise it now, the Tories say, it's falling apart. Fuck that. It's easy to do that. But it isn't necessarily true. You can also find many examples of the NHS doing a fucking great job, but then they don't make such good stories now do they???

Gimme a break.

[MassDem4Life]

30. I lived in the UK

for 4.5 years, my eldest son was born in John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford, my question is if the NHS is so great why does anyone who can afford it buy BUPA? (similar to blue cross here)

[sushi]

125. If you don't have private health insurance

you can't choose your doctor(s), or date of surgery.

[MassDem4Life]

135. yes and you can wait years

for a surgery

[DoNotRefill]

60. When dealing with socialized medicine...

you have to face the possibility of being denied treatment because your life expectancy isn't good, and the proceedure is expensive. What happened to Herb wasn't the result of a bureaucratic snafu, it was a policy decision. That's the same reason I don't like HMOs.

[friendofbenn]

119. i live in england

and the reason why the health system is so poor is that its underfunded due to britains low taxation levels. the best systems in the world are the swedish and the french. both socialized, both properly funded. the u.s system is barbaric. cuba has a better health system than the united states and its a third world country.

[MassDem4Life]

29. the USSr was never communist

they were a socialist society, and they sucked at providing bsic services.

They couldnt even feed their people... why.... people had no incentive to produce as they would never see the fruits of their labor.. why does America create abundance? Because you are free to enjoy the fruits of your labors.

Work harder and you prosper more. This is not true in a socialist system.

[Zuni]

43. state socialism

with authoritarian government is extremely repressive and stifling.

Communism was the stated goal of socialist revolution--the point where man became a collective being and worked for society without being told what to do.

[MassDem4Life]

100. that IS socialism in practice

and even though that was the "stated goal" it was never truly worked toward, because those at the top had no intention of allowing the masses to become their equals.

[RichM]

53. You're omitting something in "Why does America create abundance?"

A large contribution to America's abundance comes from the profitable exploitation of Third World countries. That's why we have a big military: to make sure that the corrupt dictatorships we install everywhere stay in power. That's the whole point of having an empire: you milk all the distant provinces for cheap labor & access to resources. If they don't like it, you bring down the fist (or pay off your local goons to do it for you).

THAT is what makes America great.

[Nederland]

56. Exploitation?

A large contribution to America's abundance comes from the profitable exploitation of Third World countries.

As I have pointed out numerous times before, the US does not exploit Third World countries (economically at least). Every year the US sends hundreds of billions of dollars to the third world. The proof of this is simple and irrefutable: look at the US trade deficit with the third world--its huge.

[redeye]

57. No...

...he's probably talking of how the USA has engineered coups in key countries in the world (e.g. Venezuela, Iran) in order to have pro-American regimes that are willing to sell raw materials to the USA at below-market prices.

OTOH, the USA was an industrial power before it militarily ventured outside the continent - it rose to industrial prominence during the 1870s whereas it started bullying nations only in the 1890s.

[Nederland]

58. True

Maybe the poster was referring to the good old days pre-1970 when we had a positive trade balance. Of course, that's exactly when out standard of living started to decline as well, so I gues s/he must be happier with the way things are now than then.

[RichM]

61. Your "proof" is hardly "irrefutable;" looking at trade deficit only is not

a broad enough view.

You're trying to make it sound as though the US were doing these countries a great generous favor by "sending them billions." What is actually happening is that these countries are sending us goods & raw materials, and getting paid in paper for it. The US is able to print as much of this paper as it wants, because it occupies the dominant world position in trade, finance, & military/industrial might. It's one of the benefits of being the top dog, that your currency is the key world reserve currency. It lets you get away with things other countries couldn't get away with.

The real question cannot be answered by restricting the view to the trade deficit. There are at least 2 reasons for this.
1) Part of the trade deficit is exports from Third World countries that are actually payments FROM some US companies or importers, TO US subsidiaries operating in these countries. For example, yesterday's lead NYT editorial said:

"China's imports are growing at a faster clip than its exports, and the bulk of the exports registering in those eye-popping trade figures are goods built in China by the likes of Intel and America's automakers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/opinion/03WED1.html

2) Rather than looking just at the category of "trade deficit," one must ask in which direction wealth is really being pumped, overall, when all factors are taken into account. Even before looking at the details of how trade numbers are calculated, it seems clear that the world's top capitalist dog wouldn't freely choose to enter into relationships with underdeveloped countries, if it resulted in the net transfer of wealth TO those countries. To doubt this is either to accuse the top dog of gross incompetence, or inexplicable generosity. (Businesses don't initiate operations in the Third World with the intent of giving away wealth.)

And the top dog wouldn't be so anxious to maintain repressive rightwing dictatorships in those countries, either - dictatorships known to enforce policies favorable to US transnationals. Why go to all that trouble, unless it "pays?"

[Nederland]

72. LOL

You're trying to make it sound as though the US were doing these countries a great generous favor by "sending them billions." What is actually happening is that these countries are sending us goods & raw materials, and getting paid in paper for it.

Since you apparently view US currency as worthless paper, please feel free to send all of the worthless paper in your possession to me. I'm sure I can find a good use for it.

[RichM]

78. Ok, we have a deal. I'll send you $100 of currency, and you send me

$300 worth of raw materials or finished goods that my hired local agents force you to sell me for $100.

I notice you neglect the other points I made. The NYT quote alone shows that the "trade deficit" includes funds that actually flow to US companies operating in 3rd world locations.

The trade deficit figure also says nothing about direct investment in those countries, nor about appreciation of assets held by US investors in those countries, nor about the huge savings US corps derive from operating in those countries & availing themselves of cheap labor & favorable tax/safety/enviro laws. Thus, there is no reason to suppose that a trade deficit can really be interpreted as a net transfer of wealth from the US to the underdeveloped countries. The real net transfer goes in the other direction -- otherwise the US wouldn't be doing it.

[Nederland]

81. Response

Nice strawman. If a third world country doesn't like the price the US is offering to pay for their goods, they are free to decline and sell it elsewhere. Hence your example of selling $300 of raw materials for $100 dollars is ridiculous. If the materials were actually worth $300, they would sell them for $300 to someone else.

[RichM]

83. Nederland -- You're ignoring points of real substance here, which

show that the trade deficit is not really an adequate measure of whether or not exploitation is taking place.

The point about the $100 transaction is the least significant of the points I raised -- but it too has considerable validity. You argue that the 3rd World country is "free to decline & sell elsewhere" if they don't like the price they're offered. But the actual dynamic is not correctly portrayed by imagining a given US client state as a homogeneous unit. Rather, it consists of the general population, plus a small local ruling class that's allied to the US and functions as our agent-on-the-scene. Members of this ruling class are happy to make deals giving US corporations enormously favorable terms of trade -- as long as they are paid well for their efforts. This results in, say, a Minister of Resources being willing to sign a deal selling his country's iron ore very cheaply, in return for a few million in a Swiss bank account.

The net result is that the Minister makes out well, the US corps make out well -- and the country's wealth is plundered.

[Nederland]

86. Excellent Point

Members of this ruling class are happy to make deals giving US corporations enormously favorable terms of trade -- as long as they are paid well for their efforts. This results in, say, a Minister of Resources being willing to sign a deal selling his country's iron ore very cheaply, in return for a few million in a Swiss bank account.

This is precisely why governments should never have anything like a "Ministry of Resources". If resources are treated as property, as they would be in a capitalist system, they will never be sold by their owners at less than their value.

I think the problem here is that you and I have fundamentally different world views. In my world, a thing is worth precisely what another person is willing to pay for it. If Jennifer Lopez defecates into a jar and sells the contents on eBay for $1000, then Jennifer Lopez's shit is worth $1000. You can argue all day long that it just shit, but the bottom line is that somebody else thought it was worth $1000 and that makes it worth $1000.

That's why when you make up examples where you talk about selling something that is "worth" $300 for $100, it simply doesn't compute. If a person can get $300 for an item, why would they sell it for $100? If no one is willing to buy it for $300, then its not worth $300. An item is worth whatever a person pays for it, no more and no less.

[MassDem4Life]

104. please list a few "US Client states" for me

I would like to see your definition of such

[MassDem4Life]

102. you are wrong again

you are lookign only at trade and goods sold and purchased, look at the much bigger pie in most countries of foreign aid.

We send tens of billions of dollars overseas every year in foreign aid.

Did you know that we have given the palestinian Authority over $100Million in the last 7 years?

Or that we have given Afghanistan over $50Billion in the five years before the war in humanitarian aid?

Or that under Bill Clinton we gave North Korea over $150 Billion in food, oil, and nuclear technology, and that is in addition to the $60 billion in cash.

Do you realize that we not only saved France's existence, but have given it over $500Billion dollars since 1960

What have we gotten in return from any of these countries?

[RichM]

105. You should read some books written by a few of your neighbors in Mass.

If you have to ask me what the term "client states" means, this shows you have never even picked up a copy of a book by Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky -- both of whom are practically your neighbors in Massachusetts.

About foreign aid: you're nuts to think that foreign aid is anywhere near what trade is, in dollar amount. Let me show you how funny that idea is. The US govt budget is about 20% of GDP. After you subtract from that the Pentagon budget, Social Security & Medicare, and the yearly interest on the national debt, you're down to a very few percent of GDP. Out of that, foreign aid is almost nothing -- it's about 0.1% of GDP. Do you think that amount is likely to be large compared with the total volume of trade?

You wrote, "We send tens of billions of dollars overseas every year in foreign aid." Actually (I'm not looking this up; I'm doing it from memory) I think the total number is close to ten billion. Not "tens of billions," but ten billion -- which is 0.1% of GDP. It sounds like a lot in dollars, but as a percent of GDP, it's almost nothing.

The US is the stingiest government in the developed world, in the amount of foreign aid it gives, as a percent of GDP. Furthermore, most of the "aid" it gives is not really aid at all. It's money given with strings attached -- typically, a promise that the receiving government will use the money to buy weapons from a US arms manufacturer. It's not money to build schools & hospitals.

Of all the silly naive uninformed things you said, the very most hilarious is your last question: "What have we gotten in return from any of these countries?" The answer to that varies according to which country you're talking about, of course. But none of this money is disbursed without there being something in it for the US. The US is not generous, & does no one any favors. If the US gives money to a government elsewhere in the world, you may rest assured that there is a well-calculated purpose for it, & that this purpose has nothing to do with generous humane impulses (though it will always be advertised as such).

For example, France. After WWII, the US rebuilt Western Europe through the Marshall Plan. This is commonly advertised as proof of America's "great generosity." But it was not really altruism; it was enlightened self-interest. What the US was doing was re-organizing the world so that its economic structure would be like a solar system with the US at its center. This was best for the US in the long run. If we'd let Europe go to hell, the world structure of capitalism would not have survived. Leftist governments would very soon have taken power in France & Italy. Thus, for the US, there was really no choice except to rebuild W. Europe -- not for THEIR sake, but for ours.

[MassDem4Life]

114. I'm not asking for

Noam Chomsky's definition, I am asking for yours.

As for trade, I did not address "total trade"
I said in some countries foreign aid far surpassed trade.

And it is ridiculous to comparte foreign aid expenditures as a % of GDP, unless you believe that the Constitution bestows that power to the Federal Government.

America is by far the most generous country on the planet, We give more money to over 100 countries every year than all others combined.

And 90% of all foreign aid is designated as humanitarian aid(food, shelter, medical, developmental, spur busines investment) And we generally get nothing in return for this money. The fact that a lrger portion of this money is usurped by the local corrupt government is not our governments fault. How else do you expect them to deal with those countries, except through their gov'ts?

OF COURSE WE, AS A NATION ACT IN OUR SELF-INTEREST!!!

Are you going to tell me that you do not act in your self-interest?

However you cannot ignore the fact that we STILL rebuilt our enemies, with our own blood sweat and tears, and yes it was in America's best interests, SO WHAT? Does that make it any less noble? Has any other country done that? EVER? Did we conquer and keep territory, and subjugate populations, as had always been done in the past?

And you failed to address the other two countries I used as examples;

What have we gotten from Afghanistan, and the PA?

[RichM]

131. Listen, child, I'm afraid I don't have time to tutor you in all this stuff

-- Why don't you read a few hundred books (I'm willing to provide you with a reading list), & come back in about 20 years, when your poor little head is less stuffed with silly propaganda? Then you might be ready to have a real discussion.

As it is, you're in the unfortunate position of knowing absolutely nothing, yet not knowing that you don't know. Everything you wrote in the above post is so staggeringly stupid that I half believe (or at least hope) that you only wrote it as a parody.

[sushi]

129. I would like to add

that the millions of aid to third world countries includes American salaries for the many American experts and "experts" needed to accompany that aid, for several years, who then take their time training locals to take over because, believe me, the expatriate life is good - well, maybe after 9/11 it's become a little dangerous for Americans to be abroad.

[sushi]

127. Aid

always has strings attached!

[Arkady]

76. Wait a second...

The concept of an American Empire is pretty recent. Historically, during the growth of America from an agrarian to an industrialized society, the US held very few, if any, colonial possessions and was a very isolationist power. Our economic development is a result of economic advantages and technology. Generally speaking, empires aren't all that profitable for a nation as a whole (they can make money for indivoduals within the nation). I remember a college professor saying that the British Empire ran at a net loss, except for India.

[RichM]

89. Your college professor was right. The trick is to "socialize the costs, &

privatize the profits." The taxpayers of Britain were made to bear the costs of empire; while the profits accrued almost entirely to the ruling elite.

Re the US as an empire: Sure, the US hasn't had many "colonial possessions." It improved on this concept by developing neo-colonial client states. This gave all the advantages of having colonies, without the expense and bother of actually having to maintain troops and administrations in every possession.

IOW, instead of being like Spain in 1550, and physically sending in soldiers to take over a colony, the US accomplishes much the same thing by applying pressures via the IMF, World Bank, military aid, & various forms of bribes, incentives & bullying, CIA operations, etc. In this way, we install leaders like, say, the Shah to run Iran for us. He runs it, he is treated like a king, and Iran is not exactly a US "Colony" in the old sense. But in effect, it behaves very much like a US colony. Same relationships, but the mechanism is more indirect.

[MassDem4Life]

101. hmmm, you must have had a socialist professor

of economics.

Fact of the matter is that We are the most noble system of government ever to exiwst on earth.

Fact is that the military does not work at the bidding of corporations, but at the bidding of the President and Congress.

And yes today business cross international lines in their business but that is a fairly recent innovation on the scale it is practiced today.

Fact is that this country was founded and built upon the principle that anyone irregardless of race, creed, wealth, or status can achieve great wealth(fruits of their labor) if they have a good idea and can bring it to market.

Examples:
immigrants arriving with no money who have made it:
An Wang
Pieere Omidyar
Juan Velasquez
Jerry Yang
Miquel Estrada

Other examples:
Bill Gates
Steve Jobs
Steve Wozniak
Paul Allen
Johnnie Hunt
Warren Buffet

[rogerashton]

108. Now, that is a model of objective, value free description.

</sarcasm>

[redeye]

112. Statistics please

The article below talks about a research that proves that the US is less socially mobile than many European nations:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1224-2003Aug15¬Found=true

[MassDem4Life]

120. The story doesnt

change the fact that every one in a $50,000 a year job started out in the minimum wage job. and moved up, and you do not refute any of the examples that I gave you. And there are MILLIONS more.

If this country is so bad why are millions of people waiting years to emigrate here? No other country has people trying to get in like we do. why is that?

There are 8 million people unemployed in this country, yet there seems to be jobs available to support 9 million illegal aliens. Explain this to me.

[RichM]

122. Look at it this way.

If this country is so bad why are millions of people waiting years to emigrate here?

- The relationship between the US and most other countries is much like the relationship between the robber, and the person who is being robbed. Life is generally nicer in the robbing country -- because it lives off the back of the exploited countries. So your question amounts to, "Which country would you rather live in? The one that robs & exploits all the other countries, or the countries that get exploited?"

It's like asking if someone would rather be holding the gun, or having the gun pointed at them. Most sane people would rather be on the side that holds all the guns -- but that's not because gun-holders are "noble" or "good" in any way.

If you live in a Third-World country, you have to suffer under the heel of US foreign policy. That's why people who live there are so eager to come here.

[sushi]

130. Could it be because

many of the 8 million unemployed don't want to do the jobs many of the 9 million illegal aliens will accept, like cleaning loos at airports, or picking fruit?

[sushi]

126. Are you saying

nobody is suffering in the US, or those who are suffering are lazy?
Yes, it's true that hard-working people who are intelligent, have drive and ambition, and are in good health will do very well, but there are also people who are disabled, chronically sick, or haven't had the opportunity to get an education, or whatever, that makes them unable to compete. Don't you think these people could do with a little help?

[Zuni]

15. Excellent post! My feelings exactly

I believe a market economy is the only form of viable economy in the modern world, but I believe a strong social system and progressive taxation are totally nessecary to make a modern country function. With moderate wealth redistribution, strong social services, and worthwhile public works systems a free market economy would thrive and ensure a healthy supply and demand based market, while also providing the nessecary means for health and education for all citizens.
A decentralized market would help check government power (when the government controls all economy, the government truly controls your life. One of the biggest problems of communism was the government control of economy that created a crushing burden on the populace), while Progressive measures would check the excess of capitalism.
I have been toying around with ideas for a 'mixed economy'. for sometime

[MassDem4Life]

31. I've got news for you.

the USA is today a "mixed economy"

We are no longer a capitalist society. We are a mixed statist/capitalist society.

[kentuck]

16. Too much capitalism....need more socialism at this time...

in my opinion.

[Blue_Chill]

17. What you describe is not socialism

Socialism - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

As you can see regulations are not 'socialism' at all. You want regulated capitalism. Big difference.

[JanMichael]

19. Don't be so dogmatic!

Socialism is a very flexible term now days.

Generally speaking what you posted is acceptable but, a big BUTT, the degrees of Socialism in a society don't make them non-Socialistic or not Socialism.

What we have are progressive hybrids (Which are constantly attacked by the Oligarchs) on the road to a more Humane Society.

The term that's well and trully screwed is "Free Market". No such thing, probably never has been either.

[Blue_Chill]

20. Nope.

Socialism is a very flexible term now days.

Ever wondered why that is?

1- So Repugs can attach it to all ideas that come out of the left and thus demonzie them to the American people.

2- Because the real meaning of the word is synonymous with 'unfeasible'

Generally speaking what you posted is acceptable but, a big BUTT, the degrees of Socialism in a society don't make them non-Socialistic or not Socialism.

True but the original post basically said socialism is not dead because goverment programs are socialism. That is not true, socialism as a economic system does not work. The system is dead and proven to be flawed.

What we have are progressive hybrids (Which are constantly attacked by the Oligarchs) on the road to a more Humane Society.

Examples please. I don't doubt you but I'm curious.

[Mairead]

21. "The system is dead and proven to be flawed"

Totally untrue. What were 'proven to be flawed' were certain implementations of state socialism, a degenerate form indistinguishable from state capitalism, i.e., fascism.

Actual socialism--democratic, cooperative, share-the-wealth socialism--is alive and well, and being voluntarily practiced as part of daily life by well over 700M people worldwide.

[Blue_Chill]

22. OK show me

what nation has a truely socialist economy. By which I mean the goverment controls all production and distribution.

Even China is moving away from that so your answer better be good.

[Mairead]

62. Do please read for comprehension rather than ammunition!

[Blue_Chill]

71. comprehension is impossible when you define words as you see fit

It's like speaking Italian to a Mexican, some words are similar but more then basic understanding is almost impossible.

[Mairead]

80. Yes, I'm aware of that

So, since I drew a clear distinction between socialism and state socialism, how about you acknowledging that difference?

[redeye]

25. And what do those coops do?

What have coops exactly invented? What have they created?

And by the way, drop "democratic" from your roster. The word's been raped enough times; you don't need to rape it for the 425097813.5th time.

[JanMichael]

28. Pardon me but what are you refering to by this?

"And by the way, drop "democratic" from your roster. The word's been raped enough times; you don't need to rape it for the 425097813.5th time."

Are you implying that she's (I believe that she is a she) is not "Democratic or democratic"? Are you suggesting that Capitalism/Oligarchy is somehow "Democratic"?

I'm multi-tasking my head into circles here at work...

[redeye]

44. No

I'm suggesting that both libertarians and socialists need to stop raping words such as freedom, fairness, justice, and democracy.

[Mairead]

63. Why don't you do some research for yourself?

Begin with www.mcc.es Open your eyes a bit, it won't hurt (or it shouldn't, at least).

As to 'democratic', what do you think that word means? I think it means 1 person = 1 share = 1 vote.

[redeye]

91. Democracy is a political, not an economic system

And you're arguing for your position, so it would befair to ask you to bring the evidence.

[rogerashton]

109. Here is one example --

if you are really interested.

http://www.mondragon.mcc.es/ingles/menu_ing.html

[MassDem4Life]

32. really?

where?

[Zuni]

42. yes

but if you rely on total voluntary co-ops, you will never have a whole socialist economy. What you decribe sounds more like anarchism, like in Spain in the 30s, than modern state socialism.
I think state capitalism is an oxymoron---In fascism they often had a rather progressive ECONOMY--a progressive hybrid of socialism and capitalism--but very harsh and brutal authoritarian social policies. Actually, the economy in Nazi Germany in the 1930s was even more left than the New Deal and actually worked very, very well. They were out of the great depression long before the US or most of the other countries that were badly affected.

[redeye]

47. Naiz economic policies...

...succeeded mostly because Jews, other minorities, and professional women were removed from the workforce. The New Deal was in the end far more successful than Hitler's programs in increasing quality of life, although Hitler was the most important factor behind curing the Depression - but in his triggering of WW2 rather than in his economic policies.

[Zuni]

50. no

Hitler did cut Jews out of the economy, but they made up only a small portion of germany's workforce.(less than 1%) Women were not employed in large numbers before 1933 in germany.
Hitler's social programs were very much like the new deal in ending unemployment, creating massive public works programs (like the autobahns). But Hitler went further. During the first of the Goering led 4 year plans, Germany sold all German owned property abroad and kept the money. Germany nationalized about 60% of their industry. Hitler ordered Goering to nationalize any industry or buisness intrest that conflicted with the interests of the nazi state. These were measures that Rossevelt could not and would not take.

[redeye]

52. The four-year-plan was a failure...

...and I have the backing of several eminent historians including Shirer, Noakes, and Pridham. The nationalization was very in-tune with corporations such as Krupps and IG Farben, unlike in Soviet Russia where the economic programs were truly extremely left-wing with the private sector all but eliminated.

[Zuni]

65. he didn't eliminate

all of the major industrial holdings. For example krupp was willing to work with and for the reich so there was no conflict. Krupp might have owned the means of production, like in capitalism for example, but Hitler controlled the means of production and the factory owners that kept their capitalist interests had to act as vassals of the state.
I never said Nazi economics were extremely left wing---they were an example of progressive mixed economics. It was their authoritarian, racist and war like actions that were evil.

Russia was much farther left (than anyone at the time), but their economy was much poorer and less developed.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

48. no, absolutely incorrect

"In fascism they often had a rather progressive ECONOMY"

No, they did not.

"Actually, the economy in Nazi Germany in the 1930s was even more left than the New Deal and actually worked very, very well. "

No, this is incorrect.

[Zuni]

49. tell me where I am wrong

please explain to me. I have studied that era for years and please explain things to me.

[Zuni]

51. refute me with facts

You must never have read about German economics in the 1930s or the Goering run 4 year plans.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

90. you sound very smart, but wrong

The fascist states were war economies, and especially in the case of the Nazis, built on slave labor. That is the opposite of "left" and "progressive". At no time did workers own their factories or have a say in running them. They were similar to the economies of other European nations, the fascists centralized control and in a very real sense merged with the corporate capitalists - the very definition of fascism.

I realize conservative Republicans try to associate "left" and "progressive" economics with fascism, but that's just another Republican lie.

[uptohere]

92. workers own the factories ?

that would be more like communism than anything else. kind of lost me there.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

103. no, under communism, workers never owned their factories

or ever had any say in running them. That's yet another Republican lie. The only people who ever believe Communist propaganda are conservative Republicans it seems.

[Zuni]

94. in the 1930s

was the era I was talking about. Hitler did not use slave labor in the 1930s.
I know full well that Hitler used slave labor, as my Russian grandparents were slave laborers there.

[Zuni]

95. On alliances with

buisness--Hitler only tolerated capitalist interests if they did not interfere with the state. And the capitalists might have owned the factories, but they were essentially run by the state.
Actually, during the war the distinction between private enterprise and government controlled industry was very blurred indeed.

[Zuni]

96. on Republicans

they definetly like to play up the 'socialist' in National socialist, but that is not where I am getting my info.
Regardless of later slave labor usage, and destructive social polity, the Nazi state had a progressive planned economy in the 1930s, with guarantees for universal employment..etc.

[Mairead]

64. Well, it's not meant to be state socialism

Socialism and state socialism could hardly be more different. With state socialism, implementation is everything. Britain did a generally benign implementation of their state-socialist programs, while Germany under Hitler did a murderous one.

I really question your assertion that the Nazi economy was in any meaningful way socialist (except in the state-socialist sense). The whole principle of real socialism is that the people, working people, run things, not some government bureaucracy that acts as a ruling class.

[Zuni]

66. different forms of socialism

You are taking what Marx believed to be the final stage of socialism or the kind of style of socialism that the anarchists had in Spain in the mid 1930s.
Marxist-leninism is different, for it feels that a powerful vanguard has to seize power, and forcefully transform the state through authoritarian control. marx touched on this principle of socialist revolution and called the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

Any forms of social programs, wealth redistribution, government controlled buisness or industry is technically a form of socialism.

[Mairead]

69. And I'm not a Marxist, so I don't really feel bound to use

doctrinaire definitions. To me, socialism is nothing more than people running things for the common benefit rather than for the benefit of a few.

[Blue_Chill]

70. You don't get to define words as you see fit

Just because I want blue to mean red doesn't mean it does. Language has is defined so that we may communicate with eachother with some degree of success.

Socialism is NOT "people running things for the common benefit" period.

[Mairead]

75. Okay, then you're a thought criminal

If I don't have the right to define and label the group of which I'm a member, then neither does anyone else. So: you're a thought criminal. :)

[Blue_Chill]

77. Oh...um....ok

bye.

[rogerashton]

110. So YOU do get to define terms as YOU see fit, is that right?

Authority: Arthur Lewis, Afro-Jamaican Nobel Laureate economist, was in the 1940's the lead economist of the Fabian Society, the British gradualist-socialist group.

"in socialism equality is the end and nationalization only a means."

Principles of Economic Planning (Torchbook edition) p. xvii.

You wingnuts choose to define socialism in ways that very few socialists would. By the same set of rules, why shouldn't I define you as an incompetent ass? I'm not saying that you ARE an incompetent ass, mind -- I'm just saying that people and movements of ideas have a right to define themselves, and not have definitions chosen for them by their enemies.

[Nederland]

54. Some Advice

You and I have argued this in length several times. During those discussion you always bring up this "750M people worldwide are practicing socialism". While this may be true given the way that you define the word "socialism", it is definately not true given the way most of the rest of us define the word. Words do not have fixed or "true" meanings, they have meanings that are defined by how people use them--and when most people use the word "socialism" they do not mean it the way you do. What most people mean when they say the word socialism is this:

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

Now I suppose that you can argue that we and the American Heritage Dictionary all have it wrong and don't understand what "socialism" really is, but the argument is ridiculous. Words are defined by how most people use them, not by what one person says the word should mean.

So my advice for you is simple. Drop the word socialism. Its got too much dead weight attached to it and its use will merely get in the way of what I hope you truly want: a fairer and more equitable world.

[Mairead]

68. No, sorry, that definition is as pointless and misleading

as one that says 'Ivy. A common decorative non-flowering houseplant; a woodland shrub that causes an unpleasant dermatitis on contact.'

Socialism and state socialism are as different as hedera helix and poison ivy.

[Nederland]

73. What are you saying?

That words are not defined by their use by society at large, but in fact defined by...you? Give me a break. The definition of a word is what the majority of users say it is, period end of story.

[Mairead]

79. I think you should read the definition you quoted more carefully

and then read my comparison. The definition you want to use tries to equate two different things, just as my exemplary definition of ivy does. Socialism and state socialism aren't the same kind of politicoeconomic system any more than ivy and poison ivy are the same kind of plant.

Just because the dictionary has only one word for two different systems doesn't eliminate the difference between them, it simply makes it difficult for someone who knows what that difference is to have a conversation with someone who doesn't.

[Nederland]

82. As yourself this question

Which is more important to you, the definition of a word or economic justice?

[Mairead]

84. What has a false dichotomy like that have to do with anything?

[Zuni]

37. 'progressive hybrids'

great term. In my opinion that is the road to a better society, a long with generally libertarian social governance.

[uptohere]

38. thanks, I'd been looking for a way to say what you just did

now there are some socialist posters but most do not understand the definitions very well.

[Mairead]

18. It's worthwhile pointing out

that there's nothing in the nature of capital that requires it be provided by individuals for their private profit. In fact, a vast amount of capital--possibly most of it--is routinely provided socially as part of the profiteers' 'privatise the profit/socialise the risk' scamming machine. When RF spectrum or grazing rights or mining rights or research dollars or a million other goods are handed out for a fraction of their real value...that's public venture capitalism, but for private profit.

Just imagine what the world would be like if the private-profit guys had to really take all the risk they claim to take.

Or, as an alternative, what it would be like if the bankers and capitalists had to give us each an appropriate amount of stock every time our public monies were used to capitalise something (like this upcoming power-grid fixup, for example). We'd completely own the means of production within a century.

[RichM]

23. You're suggesting a "stealth route" towards socialism -- very sneaky!

I like it! :thumbsup:

We demand a purer more "accountable" form of capitalism, arguing that those providing the original capital (the taxpayers) certainly deserve an ownership share in the fruits of their investment (like the power-grid). We make arguments that sound just like AEI arguments, all with a straight face, but with the intent of undoing the "privatize profit/socialize risk" scamming machine. We attack all who oppose this on the grounds that they're insufficiently pure in their capitalism. We could even call them "Communists" for violating the sacred bond between owners of capital & their investment.

The Ultra-Capitalist road to Socialism! An idea whose time has come.

[Mairead]

85. heh heh

:evilgrin:

[Terwilliger]

24. While I can appreciate your fruitation about free enterprise

I believe it's fruition ;-)

I have nothing against capitalism, per se, but it should limited to a societal dalliance...NOT a sound economic system that guarantees economic equality

[redeye]

26. And equality is good because...?

Focusing on equality distracts from the real purpose of social programs, namely to make the situation of the poor better. Many countries are far more equal than the USA in the sense that everybody is equally screwed - will you prefer everyone to earn 5 grand a year, or the poor to earn 15 grand and the rich to earn 100 grand?

[Terwilliger]

35. I'd prefer every person on the planet received $100,000 a year

*GASP*

[redeye]

46. I would, too

But currently it's not feasible, mostly due to the reason that the world's GDP per capita in 2000 was 5,110 dollars. I'm purposely asking whether you prefer a situation that's more equal or a situation where everyone's better off.

[Terwilliger]

87. more equal than what?

where some can get everything society has to offer for producing very little, or so that so many must work their ass off just to stay off of the streets?

fuck your capitalism

really

[MassDem4Life]

118. who gets everything in this society by

producing very little, you have lost me there

[Terwilliger]

128. the rich?? the priveleged??

George W. Bush come to mind?

Other rich folks who could buy anything they want anytime they want, and NEVER worry about meals, housing, or anything else, for that matter.

Unfortunately, MOST people don't live with that kind of economic freedom. They work and work and work just to make enough to pay rent and buy some food. MAYBE make enough to give their family nice things once in a while.

[MassDem4Life]

132. But how do the majority of the rich

GET rich?

Most of them created a company, which they made successful, which created jobs and livlihoods for thousands, which pay millions in taxes, as does the original company.

Is this what you decry?

[RichM]

133. Well, here's how it really works. Many of them

inherit their wealth. Most of the remainder work their way up the corporate ladder -- the success of which often depends on family or social connections, not ability. It also involves a lot of ruthless infighting & a willingness to indulge in back-stabbing of rivals, & other dirty tricks.

Now, about the companies that "pay millions in taxes" -- don't you know that most of the big companies PAY NO TAXES AT ALL? What they do (companies like GE & IBM & many of the biggies) is pay off congressmen and lobbyists to change laws so that they don't have to pay any taxes.

Now, about the companies that "create jobs and livlihoods for thousands" -- Nope. Wrong again. What they do, after getting the laws changed to suit them, is transfer production overseas so that whole towns and industries in the US become like ghost towns, while all the same work is done for 5% of the wage-cost, in countries like China, India, Mexico, etc.

Do you know how big famous companies like Exxon got their start? They were monopolies that bought lots of judges and congressmen, to help them crush all their rivals & write their own laws. If they needed the US govt to give them millions of acres of land, or large subsidies, they just had this "arranged" by their paid-for friends.

Do you know how all the big companies that do business with the Pentagon get their business? It's mostly a matter of bribes, connections, campaign contributions, stealing money from the public Treasury and blowing it on projects that don't even work -- but the profits are huge.

So yes, I think there's something to "decry," there.

[MassDem4Life]

136. you obviously did not read my post

the millions in taxes referred to the workers taxes.

Most corporations DO pay taxes, some even if they are losing money.
Although bottom line you are right they dont, because taxes are merely a cost of doing business, they are passed on to the company's customers in the price of the product or service. so NET the company pays no tax. If you raise the taxes on business'all you do is raise prices.

And you are right SOME inherit their wealth, but that wealth to was created, usually by a parent. However on the Forbes 400 last year 297 out of 400 were self made.

Hm, cite your statistics for the way business are run, do you know that the 60% of the "jobs" exported from this country are exported to relatively high wage countries most in europe. the other big benefactor of this is India.

so are you decrying business for buying politicians to advance their business? You should be decrying the corrupt politicians who shirked their public trust for personal gain.

Let me tell you about one case.

In NYC Commander Vanderbilt, bought and consolidated a number of small railroads with the intent of bringing the line into NYC along the hudson. before buying these lines he went to the state legislature and asked permission, he got all the charters, liscences, exemptions and other waste paper they issued. When he bought the lines they refused to let him bring it into the city forcign him to use the steam ship union. They also short sold his stock in an attempt to drive him out of business so that their friends counld buy his company cheap.

They failed because Vanderbilt would not back down, he bought his stock as fast as they could unload it, borrowing from banks and friends, he propped up his own stock price desroying the corrupt politicians who tried to destroy him.

All anyone remembers is that Vanderbilt built his empire by ruthlessly destroying some competitors, and politicians who stood in his way.

Yet what he did was right, and the corrupt politicians form Tammany hall were the scoundrels.

[MassDem4Life]

137. wow I didnt know you worked in military procurements too

I did in the USAF for 8 years.
do you know how some companies(not all do business with the pentagon) get business with the pentagon?

The military sets criteria for each bid to meet.

The company submits a sealed bid, supported by documentation showing that they are capable of performing the work, and a bond to cover any mistakes, or shortfalls. sometimes as much as 300 pages in this submission.

The bids are reviewed by no less than four separate revieing committes, at the service level, in procurements, at the secretary of the service level, and in the pentagon itself, before a contract is awarded.

And no I am not saying the system is free of corruption, every government agency is rife with corruption, that is why it needs to be scaled back. But you seem to paint only the business as evil while exalting the government.

[RichM]

138. Dear naive little lamb-chop - 1) It's "Commodore" Vanderbilt, not

"Commander" Vanderbilt

2) It's well-known that most of the Pentagon contracts are of the "no-bid" and "cost-plus" variety. There are no bids; it's not competitive. The reviewing committees you speak of are just for show; there are always ways of getting around that kind of thing. And the contracts have the delights of unlimited "expansion" built into them -- do you know what "cost-plus" means?

I don't at all "exalt" the government. Government in this society has been entirely purchased by business. The people in government really are nothing but agents of business, even if they superficially appear to be holding government positions.

[MassDem4Life]

139. yes I know it is commodore, sorry

I was typing as I was thinking too fast for my fingers to keep up, and again I ask;

How much experience do you have with the procurement process?

Even cost plus contracts are bid upon. numerous companies may bid for the same contract. and it is the sgt. and lt. that have to do the due diligence and make recommendations to their seniors.

I am not even going to address your uninformed diatribe regarding business owning gov't, except to say that you should be upset with the corrupt pols. rather than business.

[camero]

97. How you make a situation

where everyone is better off. Tie the fate of the rich to the fate of the poor. That's what a maximum wage does.

If the rich want a raise, the poor have to have one too. Say the minimum is $10 per hour, then the maximum would be $100 per hour.

Now, who can't live on $100 an hour?

[IrateCitizen]

55. That should not be the purpose of social programs, either!

Focusing on equality distracts from the real purpose of social programs, namely to make the situation of the poor better.

If you think that should be the real purpose of social programs, then we are speaking two different languages. The real purpose of social programs is to benefit SOCIETY as a whole -- by doing the maximum amount to equalize OPPORTUNITY and to provide a helping hand to those falling upon unfortunate circumstances. In doing so, we help raise the production and innovation of society as a whole, thus really benefitting everybody in more than strictly economic terms in the end.

Your definition, (making) "the situation of the poor better," is demeaning and elitist. Inherent in it is the belief that the poor will always be poor, and they won't be able to help themselves, so it's up to us to make things a little bit easier for them.

[camero]

98. The purpose of social programs

are to keep people from going into poverty in the first place. They mitigate the worst affects of Capitalism because with pure capitalism, social order would not be maintained. What I mean by that is after so much inequality, people would be rioting in the streets.

It doesn't mean that the classes are set. In a purely capitalist system, just as in a purely socialist system(communism), they are set.

[rogerashton]

111. You don't like equality, fine.

So long as you are willing to be on the bottom.

[redeye]

116. I don't care whther I'm at the top or at the bottom...

...as long as my absolute quality of life is good. Equality is only good if it elevates the poor, but in many cases it only helps to sink them. It definitely does in the case of coops and other measures of the socialist rape of the tern "economic democracy."

[MassDem4Life]

27. Please tell me of a socialist society that

was more efficient than our system at providing basic services such as you named above.

I know of none.

[RichM]

34. There are several big problems with this kind of argument.

First of all, suppose we lived in 1590, and I came to you, with a wild-eyed vision of building a new society with no monarchy, no class of nobles, no feudalism, & which conformed to what we now call a "liberal capitalist democracy." Would you jeer at me and say that the idea was completely ridiculous, just because the world had never seen a good example of this type of society, at that point in history?

Secondly, there have been numerous attempts already at developing socialist societies. Every one of them has had to deal not just with the problems of developing a new social organization, but also with powerful attempts from the established order, led by the US, to undermine & destroy it. Thus, these kinds of societies have not really been given a fair opportunity yet, to demonstrate what they're capable of. Despite this, some of them made considerable gains in some areas. The USSR, for example, though a terrible mess in many ways, actually made remarkable gains up until the mid 60's, particularly in health care, education, & industrialization -- especially when one considers where they started from in 1917; the fact that they were devastated in 2 world wars & a civil war; & the fact that the US & its allies were always trying to ruin them.

[IrateCitizen]

36. It's not an either/or axiom!

The issue floated by the original poster (if you had bothered to read it!) was not a contest between socialism and capitalism. The issue is how to combine the two so that society benefits most.

Please tell me of a socialist society that was more efficient than our system at providing basic services such as you named above.

Well, I can think of several economies that incorporate a much more significant amount of socialism that do a much better job of providing for their citizens: Germany, Holland, Sweden, France, Canada. All of these countries do a better job of providing basic social services for their citizens because they correctly realize that there are many areas in which the myth of the "free market" just tends to screw things up more than it benefits society.

Additionally, it has been found that people are generally happier not in societies that afford them the opportunity to get incredibly rich, but rather those that have a more egalitarian income distribution. The US is definitely NOT one of those.

Here in the US, we have 1 out of every 5 children growing up in poverty, 41 million people without health insurance, a crumbling educational system (both literally and figuratively!), and an astronomically widening gap between the rich and everybody else. We also work longer hours for less money in spite of the fact that worker productivity has increased significantly over the past 40 years. You may call that "providing basic services", but as a thinking person, I call it social Darwinism in which the rich get richer and everyone else should just be happy they have the shirt on their back.

[camero]

99. Yes

I could not have said it better myself.

[western mass]

33. we already have a socialist system

Subsidies and bailouts for corporations is what keeps our economic system afloat. For corporations, we already live in a socialist utopia.

[BayCityProgressive]

39. EXACTLY!!!!!!!

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest fo us! The reason no socialist societies have worked is because countries we call "socialist" usually aren't and the ones that are we help overthrow or demonize and embargo. Also most countries that have revolutions are 3rd world nations. Cuba is not perfect but they have created a literacy rate that matches ours, universal healthcare, free public education, and everyone there is fed, and most people own land now. All with an embargo on them and all with being under seige for 40 years. They also have plenty of problems there but these are positive steps. Socialism controls the main organs of the state- banking, healthcare, energy production ect. people still have private property and small businesses there ar ejust no huge corporations. The Right has blurred the lines between socialism and hysteria.

[Zuni]

67. hardly

most corporations do not get bailouts. Entitilement programs far outspend the amount to keep buisnesses from going bankrupt.(would you rather the people that work for them lose their jobs?)
Recently there have been quite a few bailouts, USAIR, Amtrac etc. however but still entitlements far exceed corporate bail money.

[Mairead]

74. "Entitlements far exceed corporate bail money"

That's a bit like the unemployment-rate scam. Picking and choosing what you count as 'entitlements' vs 'corp bail money' lets you come up with whatever you like. For example, the HHS budget this year includes billions for bioterrorism. I certainly wouldn't call that an entitlement, but I would call preferential taxation part of the corp bail money.

[MaverickX]

41. Capitalism ...

Simply means private individuals own the means of production. Even if the government regulates these individuals we have a capitalist system.

[Clete]

45. I agree with you.

Basic human needs should be socialized and regulated. Everything else would fall under capitalistic darwinism. We need the capitalistic profits to fund the social programs.

[Darranar]

88. I agree with you...

what we need is enough social programs to end starvation and lac of health insurance, and to provide equal oppurtunity to everyone. Not equal wealth, but equal oppurtunity, which means that everyone should be able to get a great education without being forced to sacrifice food and water.

[redeye]

93. I'm a moderate capitalist...

...which basically means I support continued rape of the workers by the capitalist pharaohs (if you believe the socialists) and that I support lazy welfare queens leeching the taxpayers' money (if you believe the libertarians).

More objectively, I support the free market and private enterprise and think that government expenditure should be the minimum required. However, my definition of "required" is very different from this of most libertarians: I support a living wage somewhere in the 7's, I think that health and education expenditures are not near what they should be, I support quality control and regulations, and I ultimately think that welfare and international aid are two of those "required" things.

[Liberal Classic]

106. Under capitalism, man expoits man.

Under communism, it's just the opposite.

[redeye]

113. What - man exploits man, again?

No argument intended, this is just for clarification.

[rogerashton]

115. The communist creed:

Capitalism is a system in which
the strong exploit the weak, and
the rich oppress the poor, therefore,
workers of all countries, unite!

The Republican creed:

Capitalism is a system in which
the strong exploit the weak, and
the rich oppress the poor, therefore,
is this a great country, or what?

[redeye]

117. And my creed:

Communism is a simplistic pseudo-science that has been empirically proben wrong wherever and whenever it was implemented.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a system in which the financially strong oppress the financially weak.

Therefore, workers and employers need to realize that all modes of class warfare devastate everyone.

[userdave2061]

121. As long as I can live as well as the highest paid socialist leader

Bring it on. If we can earn the fruits of boats, motorcycles, jetskis, lobster dinner, guns and all the other toys we have now then who cares?
Life is more than black shirs and a bowl of gruel with some grog and we deserve whatever we can squeeze out of it.

[sushi]

124. I agree 100%

Like you I don't like extremes. I understand some European countries are already part capitalist part socialist. Recently a UN report said that Finland is the best place to live, followed by Sweden, with Canada in third place.

[SmileyBoy]

134. I'm personally for a Socialist/Capitalist hybrid system.

Like Canada and much of Europe has already, and what we're regressing from. The Socialist/Capitalist hybrid system is the wave of the future, IMO.